John Kettler Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 Last night my roomie, Jim, leaped CM generations (he'd played the Beta but never the Gold demo) and fought a Quick Battle with me. He had the Germans, I the Americans. I initially set the force level at 1000 points, with the Americans on the attack.He freaked when he saw how much he got as the defender, shuddering to think what I would get, let alone the work of positioning and running that many units. I then reset the generator to 300 points, with all settings nominal except that Germans had a one level experience advantage over the Americans. Both sides had combined arms. Terrain was rolling, with clumps of scattered trees, good armor terrain for closing in on a dug-in foe. Date was September '44. I had a mech I platoon w/ M5 halftracks, platoon HQ w/ halftrack, .50 cal MG and 60mm, in a halftrack (5 HTs in all). I also had one 75mm Sherman and three T-8 recon vehicles. They're deturreted Stuart light tanks mounting a .50 cal MG. Never saw one of those before. My roomie had only one platoon of infantry, a platoon HQ, a 250/9 (OT turret w 20mm cannon & MG 34), two AP minefields and a PAK 40. That was it. He was supposed to defend a single objective located at the rear of a town sited on a Y junction. The objective lay near the base of the Y. I deployed the T-8s up front, trailed by the HTs, with the Sherman in scattered trees for overwatch on the right flank. Using lots of suppressive fires on the buildings, I advanced by successive bounds and encountered his 250/9. A T-8 got it before it could fire so much as a single shot. The infantry in the heavy building it was hiding behind died in a hail of 75mm HE and multiple .50 cal MG fires. I did lose a T-8 (we think from PAK 40 fire) near the road, close to the Y junction. The PAK 40 was behind a stone wall at the corner of a field, directly across from the objective. It too was smothered by suppressive fires and destroyed, as were the remaining two German squads, which were located in heavy buildings. Naturally, the game ended in a smashing Allied victory on Turn 8. Having no combat means left, Jim surrendered. I took one casualty, some poor unfortunate who stepped on a mine. Even the knocked out T-8's crew emerged unharmed. Granted that terrain was favorable and I avoided the PAK 40's ambush marker, which saved a haltrack and the mortar team riding in it. Granted that my tactics were sound as well. Still, neither Jim nor I understand how he was supposed to have any real chance to defeat such a well armed, relatively well protected foe. Quoth he "What am I supposed to do? Use harsh language?" He had veterans, I regulars, to be sure, but with the terrain, lack of any AT weapon with real range other than the PAK 40 (not even a Panzerschreck), no HMG, no mortar or FO, how could he possibly be expected to do much of anything to me, let alone defeat me? Is this an indication of a glitch in the Quick Battle Generator? Does its selection logic somehow break down at such low point totals? Also, he and I both noticed another oddity. Even though his forces were savaged as soon as the shooting started (rapidly worsening thereafter), he had a crushing victory on the meter until I got close (two houses away) to the single objective flag. Frankly, this strikes me as a serious distortion in the game decision logic. I had crushing combat superiority against a foe helpless to resist several turns before the game recognized the obvious and changed the flag to mine. That didn't trigger a surrender either, by the way. Jim had to manually surrender. I believe that the logic controlling a single objective battle may need to be looked at carefully. Something seems off. Thought you should know. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 30, 2000 Author Share Posted June 30, 2000 Just so this thread doesn't get lost in the burgeoning message traffic I'm putting this reply up in the hopes that you see this with my missing smoke post regarding the Quick Battle generator. Would really appreciate responses to them, but I realize you have been buried with the release and the second batch. Congratulations on your success! Hope you also get to sleep! John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 5, 2000 Author Share Posted July 5, 2000 Since I note that Steve's back, I'll post this in hope of finally getting an answer to my question. Welcome back, Steve! Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted July 5, 2000 Share Posted July 5, 2000 On the flags: don't believe them. The flags belong to you as long as you can't see a lot of enemy units near them (even if there are). They can be very deceiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted July 5, 2000 Share Posted July 5, 2000 I am growing in the belief that we as players may have been over-reacting to singular events, both in the computer's selection of forces and how the game plays out. It looks apparent to me after further play that the program is written to allow improbable things to happen. This is disturbing in the short term. But I suspect that over the long term the probabilities reassert themselves once again. I have a hunch that if you ran a scenario 10 times using the same set-up and tactics each time, 6 of those runthroughs would be fairly ordinary and predictable. The other 4 would be off the wall, each of them unique. Just a thought. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreasyPig Posted July 6, 2000 Share Posted July 6, 2000 BTS, I LOVE the game, can't stop playing it. I do have one request and if sounds improper please someone convince me of it. Can we have in the QBs a seperate point max for each side? I understand the point system very well. I understand WHY its there. BUT I sometimes find I would like to see a Lop-sided point pool. I know you can do this by selecting each sides equip prior to the engagement but I like being surprised and having to make do with what the game has given. GP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted July 6, 2000 Share Posted July 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GreasyPig: Can we have in the QBs a seperate point max for each side?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Read the manual. This is already in the game. Select the side you wish to have the larger point max as the attacker. Depending on whether you choose an assult or an advance mission, the attacker will receive up to twice as many points as the defender (an assualt receives 2x, advance something like 1.5x) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreasyPig Posted July 6, 2000 Share Posted July 6, 2000 DOH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted July 6, 2000 Share Posted July 6, 2000 Hi John, Although I will be the first to say that the Quick Battle force selection stuff isn't perfect, I think Michael is right about not taking a few games out of context of many. It is possible for the force purchase to not be well matched up against each other. We have made a few tweaks since 1.0, and probably will be tweaking force purchasing until the cows come home. But overall it does a very good job when you think of the huge variables it has to deal with. It is also set up to err on the side of having "too many" oddball stuff (like the T8 and 250/9) to spice up the variety of weapons you are "forced" to use and fight against. As for the flag thing, I think that if you had played out a couple more turns the AI would have likely forced Jim to surrender. It tries to not be too harsh and will most likely not surrender the field to a side that has just lost a flag, even if the force is decimated. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted July 6, 2000 Share Posted July 6, 2000 Would it be possible to add an option in the quick battles so that there are NO restrictions on force makeup? Sometimes I want to get just one more of those...but it is 2 pts to much... Just an option mind you, to go with the others. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 6, 2000 Author Share Posted July 6, 2000 Thanks for the explanation, Steve. I guess I'll just have to (growl, mutter, curse, sounds of heels being dragged) HAVE to play more quick battles and keep a running tally of who wins and who loses, taking the occasional martial oddity as the price of so much pleasure elsewhere in the game. I am glad you are tweaking the unit cost list, too. Seems like people have been finding some amazing military bargains there, leading to distinctly odd battles. Congratulations to you, Charles, and the rest on such marvelous reviews! You richly and totally deserve them. Sincerely, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts